Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/16/1996 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 16, 1996
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 382
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Dispensing
Opticians; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 404
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 405
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Examiners
in Optometry; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 71
"An Act relating to the location of the convening of the
legislature in regular session; and providing for an effective
date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 382
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2366 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2366 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2366 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
01/16/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 404
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/09/96 2392 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/09/96 2392 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
01/16/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 405
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF OPTOMETRISTS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/09/96 2392 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/09/96 2392 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
01/16/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 71
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS TO BE IN ANCHORAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN, Porter, Bunde, Kohring
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 39 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 39 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 39 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/19/95 91 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
01/12/96 2440 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
01/16/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
WALTER WILCOX, Committee Aide
House State Affairs Committee
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 382, HB 404 and
HB 405.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licenses
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2974
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 382, HB 404 and HB
405.
LARRY HARPER, Licensed Dispensing Optician
534 West 2nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-1021
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 382.
DENNIS EGAN, Mayor
City and Borough of Juneau
155 South Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5257
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 71.
JAMIE PARSONS, Chair
Alaska Committee
9218 Emily Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-3060
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 71.
CHUCK ACHBERGER, Executive Director
Juneau Chamber of Commerce
124 West 5th Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6420
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 71.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4949
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HB 71.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-01, SIDE A
Number 0000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:00 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Ogan, Ivan, Porter, Robinson,
and Willis. Members absent were Green.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES welcomed the committee members back and the
audience to the first 1996 House State Affairs Committee meeting.
She proceeded with housekeeping issues. Meeting times would be
from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and 10:00
a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays, if necessary. Chair James
declared the meetings would start and end on time. However, on
Thursday, January 25, 1996, the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate would be speaking at the Alaska Business
Round Table at 7:00 a.m., therefore, the meeting would start at
8:15 a.m. She remarked a meeting may be extended in the event of
a heavy schedule. She informed the committee teleconference
testifiers would have a time limit and suggested a representative
speak on behalf of a large group of testifiers, when possible.
She further remarked the witness registers were located at the
front door and all those who wished to testify must register.
She stated each committee member would receive a committee
packet. She informed the committee on Tuesday, January 23, 1996,
there would be a joint state affairs committee meeting. Chair
James further outlined the rules by which the committee would
operate.
Number 0510
CHAIR JAMES recognized the presence of Representative Joe Green.
HB 382 - EXTEND BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS
HB 404 - EXTENDING BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS
HB 405 - EXTEND BOARD OF OPTOMETRISTS
Number 0529
The first order of business to come before the House State
Affairs Committee was HB 382, HB 404 and HB 405.
CHAIR JAMES said she prepared HB 382 and her Committee Aide,
Walter Wilcox, was here to make the presentation.
Number 0544
WALTER WILCOX, Committee Aide, House State Affairs Committee,
read the sponsor statement for HB 382, HB 404 and HB 405. House
Bill 382 extended the board for four years, HB 404 extended the
board for five years, and HB 405 extended the board for five
years. Mr. Wilcox stated the boards were responsible for
overseeing the licensing of doctors that were covered by the
appropriate board. The board must be extended, he stated, if the
doctors were to be licensed. He further stated the fiscal notes
identified the cost of the programs which were included in the
1997 fiscal year operating budget, therefore new funds were not
required. Mr. Wilcox informed the committee, concerns were
raised in the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee regarding
some of the boards of which legislation was forthcoming.
Catherine Reardon, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing
was here to answer any questions from the committee.
Number 0597
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Mr. Wilcox to share with the
committee the concerns expressed in the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee.
MR. WILCOX said he would defer to Ms. Reardon to answer that
question.
Number 0611
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Reardon to come forth and join them at the
table for further discussion. She informed the committee members
HB 382, HB 404 and HB 405 were grouped together because of their
similarities, but they would vote on them separately.
Number 0645
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, thanked
Representatives James and Kott for introducing the three bills
before them. She stated the boards were up for their scheduled
"sunset period." The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee
recommended extending all three boards, she stated. The fiscal
notes were not new money the division would need, she asserted,
but reflected the ongoing cost needed to run the programs. Ms.
Reardon said, the issues brought forth in the "sunset" audits
were relatively minor statute concerns. For example, the Board
of Optometrists audit suggested the application deadline be
regulated by department rather than by statute. The statute
mandated that the application must be received 15 days before the
examination causing administrative trouble in the department. It
also suggested removing statute licensing requirements for branch
offices, and finally, it recommended deleting some statute
requirements due to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Board of Chiropractor Examiners audit suggested eliminating
licensing reciprocity with other states. The Board of Dispensing
Opticians audit suggested eliminating one of two statutes that
addressed Alaska licensing requirements for those licensed in
other states. The audit also suggested instituting a civil fine
for practicing the field of opticianry without a license. In
summary, she stated, the legislative audits were favorable
towards the boards.
Number 0975
CHAIR JAMES thanked Ms. Reardon and opened the floor up for
discussion and questions.
Number 0980
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked Ms. Reardon if the
Administration would be making suggestions for changes or was it
the responsibility of the legislature.
Number 1000
MS. REARDON said the Administration agreed with all of the
suggested changes as a result of the audits. However, the
Governor did not intend to introduce legislation this year. The
concentration was solely on extending the boards at this time.
Number 1040
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were further questions or comments.
Number 1045
REPRESENTATIVE SCOT OGAN asked if the boards had any judicial
powers.
Number 1062
MS. REARDON cited the Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, Land Surveyors had the ability to fine up to $5,000
for unlicensed activity. However, the great majority of the
boards did not have judicial power, she said. It was left to the
court system burdened with perceived more serious cases. Ms.
Reardon mentioned again the dispensing opticians audit
recommended instituting a civil fine authority for that board.
Number 1098
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were further questions or comments and
thanked Ms. Reardon for her time. She called on the first
teleconference participant in Anchorage, Larry Harper.
Number 1114
LARRY HARPER via Anchorage, Licensed Dispensing Optician,
testified and recommended to the committee the Board of
Dispensing Opticians and the Board of Optometrists have the same
"sunset" expiration date.
Number 1175
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Wilcox to respond.
MR. WILCOX said it was his understanding the intention was to
stagger the expiration dates for the audit department's work
load. He called on Ms. Reardon to respond further.
Number 1198
MS. REARDON said it was her understanding it worked that way in
prior years. She said the chiropractic extension could be
adjusted, however.
Number 1200
MR. WILCOX said there was no objection to making them all the
same.
Number 1211
CHAIR JAMES said, that would be up to the committee, and asked if
there were further questions or comments.
Number 1217
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Reardon to explain the makeup of
the boards.
Number 1242
MS. REARDON said there were five members on each board. The
Board of Optometrists consisted of four licensed optometrists and
one public member. The Board of Chiropractic Examiners consisted
of four licensed chiropractors and one public member. The Board
of Dispensing Opticians consisted of four opticians to include
some licensed in contacts and some in spectacles, and one public
member. The Board of Dispensing Opticians met one time per year
to help keep expenses down, while the other two boards met twice
a year. Teleconference meetings were arranged, when needed.
Number 1350
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were further questions or comments.
Number 1355
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved that HB 382 move from
committee. Hearing no objection, HB 382 was moved out of the
House State Affairs Committee with the attached fiscal note and
individual recommendations.
Number 1375
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said there was discussion about changing
"2000" to "2001" for the Board of Dispensing Opticians. He asked
if the decision was to leave it at "2000."
Number 1380
CHAIR JAMES said it would remain as is because there was a motion
made and no one objected.
Number 1390
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that HB 404 move from committee.
Hearing no objection, HB 404 was moved out of the House State
Affairs Committee with the attached fiscal note and individual
recommendations.
Number 1405
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that HB 405 move from the committee.
Hearing no objection, HB 405 was moved out of the House State
Affairs Committee with the attached fiscal note and individual
recommendations.
HB 71 - LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS TO BE IN ANCHORAGE
Number 1470
CHAIR JAMES announced the next item on the agenda was HB 71. She
called on Representative Joe Green to present his sponsor
statement.
Number 1480
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN read the following sponsor statement.
"HB 71 directs the legislature to meet in the Municipality of
Anchorage beginning in January 1998. HB 71 does not, and I
repeat, does not, propose to move the capitol.
"A recent statewide survey, and the results of the 1994 ballot
initiative, both indicated that there is considerable statewide
support, and majority support in southcentral Alaskan area, for
the legislature to meet in Anchorage. HB 71 directs the
legislative council to arrange for an appropriate meeting place.
Since the dimensions of the House chambers, the largest meeting
body that we have in the legislature, are 60 feet by 52 feet, it
is not anticipated that arranging for an appropriate meeting
place would present much of a problem.
"While credit should be given to the Alaska Committee for their
efforts to make Juneau a better host to legislators and staff,
their efforts can not overcome Juneau's remote geographical
location. Navigational improvements at the airport,
telecommunications infrastructure, and more available housing
units will all make Juneau a better capitol city. However, none
of these improvements will get the majority of legislators
together in a majority with the voters."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asserted the setting today was biased. He
suggested a meeting was in order in the Anchorage Bowl. In
comparison to the capital move, he said, the legislative move did
not impact the existing departments. He cited two of the larger
departments which had more personnel in Anchorage than in Juneau.
He stated the commissioners, the Governor, and others in the
Administration were in Anchorage frequently. Representative
Green described the alleged problems of separating the
legislative session from the administrative session as a "red
herring." He further stated while the strides in
telecommunications media were great, it still behooved the
legislature to associate more closely with the majority of the
citizens of Alaska we enact laws for. Lastly, he informed the
committee HB 71 was not a new bill as it was prefiled in 1995.
The bill was not pushed, he asserted, due to deference of the
Senate that tried to move a like bill last year.
Number 1688
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were further questions or comments for
the sponsor.
Number 1695
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN referred to the fiscal notes from the
Legislative Affairs Agency and the Governor's office. He
questioned the $136,000 expenditure found on page 3 of the fiscal
note addressing the cost of moving Juneau state agencies.
Number 1725
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded the fiscal note Representative
Ivan referred to was inflated. If there were to be an error, he
stated, it would be an error on the higher side. He said, the
need to move the agencies was overstated. The renovation of the
capitol building and the cost of buying space in Anchorage were
the two issues that inflated the cost of the bill. There was a
one time cost, of renovation in Anchorage he explained, but that
did not consider the relocation of legislators and the per diem
expense. He said perhaps the per diem and personal irritations
costs were inflated.
Number 1790
CHAIR JAMES asked if Representative Green had calculated a fair
fiscal note himself.
Number 1798
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded he had but was not justified to
present it because he was not an expert. His fiscal note would
reflect the obvious expenditure savings, he stated. He further
stated he anticipated a savings in the long run if the
legislative session was moved to Anchorage.
Number 1815
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were further questions or comments.
Number 1816
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said Representative Green alluded there
would not be any per diem for legislators if the session was in
Anchorage. She stated legislators would get per diem in
Anchorage as well as in Juneau.
Number 1842
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded the per diem would be
significantly less for those living within driving distance of
the session. He said, it was hard to justify per diem for
legislators living in the same community. He informed the
committee this issue was being addressed in another bill. The
per diem would be significantly reduced for half of the
legislators and not reduced for the other half.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said, we were talking about $9.00. She
commented it was not substantial.
Number 1879
CHAIR JAMES questioned the $9.00 comment by Representative
Robinson.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated it was about a $9.00 difference.
Number 1879
CHAIR JAMES said Juneau Legislators got 75 percent of the current
per diem of $148. Therefore, 25 percent of $148 was the
difference. The total difference would be all of the legislators
from the Anchorage Bowl if the legislative session was in
Anchorage. Therefore, based on the current structure, the
difference would be substantial.
Number 1914
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented on the importance of the
legislative aides and their families. They were not paid for
relocation expenses creating a hardship. He curiously asked if a
study had been done looking at the divorce rate amongst
legislators and their aides. Representative Ogan said he brought
his family to Juneau each session and was thankful for the
stability it provided. He alluded the stability ultimately made
him a better legislator so the fewer legislators and their
families that had to relocate would create better government.
Number 1980
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were further questions or comments.
She called on the first witness for HB 71, Dennis Egan, Mayor,
City and Borough of Juneau.
Number 2015
DENNIS EGAN, Mayor, City and Borough of Juneau, said Juneau was
being faced with an issue that would cause divisiveness and had a
serious impact on the financial and social well being of the
city. The move of the legislative session, he asserted, was
tantamount to a capital move. Juneau, he stated, had faced this
issue statewide eight times since statehood. Mayor Egan said
this issue was debated in the Senate last year and was voted in
favor of Juneau. He asserted, the main reason there was a
critical housing shortage in Juneau, was due to the capital move
"cloud" that had been hanging over the citizens for the past
number of years. During the last capital move fight housing
starts in Juneau were at a standstill. However, once the capital
move was put to a rest, the community broke loose and housing
unit starts skyrocketed. The threat of another capital move
could do damage to the life of the community depending on how
long this issue would stay at the forefront in the legislature.
He further asserted the community's strides accomplished last
year would be put on hold. Mayor Egan said the city of Juneau
was working hard to make it a better capital city. He cited over
$3,000,000 in projects that had been expended that directly
related to making Juneau a better capital city. For example,
$500,000 for legislative housing, $200,000 for increased access
to the legislative process, $50,000 for a video bridge for video
teleconferencing, $50,000 in increased readings at Juneau
International Airport, and $15,000 for parking permits, had been
expended. He further cited an attitudinal survey of Alaskans to
determine their opinions on the capital city. The survey found
73 percent of Alaskans agreed with improving other areas in the
state over moving the capital. He further said Representative
Green's sponsor statement referred to "capitol" rather than
"capital." Mayor Egan reassured the committee this issue was not
about a building, but about the lives of your fellow Alaskans.
In conclusion, he reminded the committee an issue such as HB 71
had the potential to devastate a city of 30,000 people, and
enough was enough.
Number 2202
CHAIR JAMES thanked Mayor Egan and called on Jamie Parsons,
Chair, Alaska Committee.
Number 2235
JAMIE PARSONS, Chair, Alaska Committee, a non-profit, private
organization, said the committee turned proactive last year
producing a mission statement to enhance Juneau as Alaska's
capital city and to help make government work better for all
Alaskans. The sole purpose, he stated, was to bring Alaskans
closer to state government and government closer to Alaskans. He
cited some of the committee's efforts, for example, five video
teleconference sites in Juneau. Mr. Parsons further informed the
goal of the committee was to make sure every community throughout
the state had a video teleconference site in the future. This
year, the Gavel to Gavel plan gave the opportunity to bring the
legislative process to the classrooms, offices and homes of every
citizen in the state. The City and Borough of Juneau committed
$200,000 to underwrite the Gavel to Gavel program and also
committed to two additional years of funding. The Alaska
Committee was also working with the Administration to create an
800 Alaska help center telephone number to create a government
information and referral system. Mr. Parsons further informed
the committee, the City and Borough of Juneau had spent $50,000
to install wind reading equipment to enable the Global
Positioning System (GPS) program to move forward. The Alaska
Committee was also working closely with Alaska Airlines to
improve flight scheduling during the legislative session. Mr.
Parsons further said the Alaska Committee was looking at
improving surface access to Juneau. Locally, they were working
on the housing issue by recommending the elimination of red tape
and the building permit inspection process by working with the
City and Borough Assembly. The Assembly, he cited, recently
spent $500,000 towards meeting seasonal and legislative housing
needs. He lastly called on everybody to work together and make
the existing infrastructure more effective, and collectively find
ways to make all Alaskans feel they have some ownership in the
legislative process.
TAPE 96-01, SIDE B
Number 0000
CHAIR JAMES called on Chuck Achberger, Executive Director, Juneau
Chamber of Commerce.
CHUCK ACHBERGER, Executive Director, Juneau Chamber of Commerce
addressed the issue of the alleged biased environment by
Representative Green. He asserted a motivated constituency would
take advantage of the teleconference system. He cited examples
of lengthy tort reform and resource testimony from constituents
in Anchorage and other areas of Alaska using the teleconference
system to get their views heard. The Anchorage constituents were
not as motivated as Representatives Green and Porter believed, he
said, otherwise they would have called in via teleconference
today. He further stated the fiscal estimates were not on the
low side. A move would be very expensive, he stated. Mr.
Achberger lastly asserted the commute was not favorable to many
people even living in the Anchorage Bowl. In conclusion he said
Juneau had made a lot of progress and if given a few more years
the city could make it even more comfortable.
Number 0169
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN thanked Mr. Achberger for his testimony. He
further said Juneau was a wonderful place to live. However, the
real issue was access by the people to their legislators, he
stated. Representative Ogan asserted face-to-face testimony was
more affective and agreed video teleconference would be a big
step forward. He asked the cameras to pan the room to show the
audience the crowded room and the interest in the issues.
Number 0269
MR. ACHBERGER said, he agreed with Representative Ogan. However,
he stated, constituents would find their representatives when
they needed to. The vocal minority would always find access, he
said. In conclusion, Mr. Achberger commented the real access the
people had was through voting.
CHAIR JAMES called Senator Randy Phillips to the table.
Number 0359
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS said this issue would not go away.
Contrary to testimony on housing and personal issues, the main
problem was access. We were elected to represent the people.
Senator Phillips said, if the legislature were to move to
Anchorage the people would respond. He cited the Anchorage
Caucus meeting drew 300-400 people each meeting addressing their
concerns. Furthermore, the families in his district complained
their children could not see the legislative process in action.
He asserted direct exposure was important for the young people of
Alaska. Physical access created a better understanding of the
institution, he alleged, fundamentally resulting in more
confidence and respect the institution deserved. Senator
Phillips stated he had better response when he talked to people
directly than when the people relied on the media for filtered
information. The access issue was a big problem and there were
only a few ways to get to Juneau, he said. He concluded by again
reiterating the shame it was that the majority of the children of
Alaska could not see the legislative process in action, and it
was just a matter of time before the legislature would move.
Number 0548
CHAIR JAMES thanked Senator Phillips and asked if there were
further questions or comments.
Number 0560
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was proud of the citizens of
Juneau for addressing the issue. She asked if other communities
in Alaska would respond the same way. Representative Robinson
further addressed the issue of access to other areas of Alaska
and not just Anchorage. Alaska was a very large state, she said,
that would require teleconference access no matter where the
capital was located. She agreed with Senator Phillips and his
concern that the young people of Alaska should have better access
to the legislative process. She cited the Gavel to Gavel program
brought the legislature to the classrooms. Representative
Robinson also questioned why the Close-Up Program was eliminated
last year in the budget. Once again, however, the citizens of
Juneau responded and the Southeast Regional Resource Center was
still going to do a Close-Up Program. She recognized the
difficulties incurred when relocating, but no matter where the
capital was citizens would be misplaced. She concluded by asking
everyone to work together and to make sure every citizen of this
state had access to the capital.
Number 0710
CHAIR JAMES said she moved to Alaska when the capital move issue
was at its highest. She said when she looked at a map of the
state she was surprised to see the capital was so far south. She
further stated one-half of the people in the state lived in the
Anchorage Bowl. Therefore, one-half of the people were
displaced. Chair James declared the people of Juneau loved their
capital and they would do everything within their power to keep
the capital here. It was unreasonable to think, she said, this
would change right now given the current sentiment. She said,
she enjoyed coming to Juneau and it was a wonderful place. She
remarked she was not sure what would happen if the legislators
were spread out over the city of Anchorage, but she cited Salem,
Oregon and Sacramento, California were bigger cities than
Anchorage, and they managed to come together. Chair James
further stated telecommunication was needed no matter where the
capital was located due to the rural districts. She asserted she
was not taking a position on this issue, however, she commented,
the city of Juneau would be better served if they would spend
their time and efforts concentrating on what kind of city Juneau
would be when the capital was gone rather than trying to keep the
capital here. She applauded the cohesiveness of the community in
their efforts, but believed the capital would move eventually due
to the geographical differences between the Panhandle and the
rest of the state. Chair James declared the issue would not go
away, but it would not pass the legislature this year either.
She asked if there were further questions or comments.
Number 0935
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented it was an access and location
issue. He said he continued to hear today interchange between
the capital move and the legislative move. He believed one did
not follow the other. Representative Green said he was pleased
with Juneau, when you could get there, and the people were top
notch. The problem, however, was he represented his constituency
in Anchorage and Anchorage represented a much larger percentage
of the people in the state. He further said, 57 legislators
relocated to Juneau each session while in Anchorage it would be
around 30. The shear weight of numbers, he commented, suggested
a move towards the center of the population. He cited Carson
City, Nevada as a capital that was not located in the center of
the population. However, he said, there was not a commuting
problem due to more favorable commuting conditions.
Representative Green declared when the capital moved failed the
rent skyrocketed, and furthermore, the legislators were evicted
when the session was extended and the tourists arrived. He cited
for 30 years the capital had been in Juneau and there had always
been a housing problem. He alleged the potential threat to move
the capital or the legislature kept the fire going and the issues
in the forefront. Representative Green applauded the increased
telecommunication networks. He believed it was the answer to
access in the remote areas, but the issue was still the access
from the constituency to the legislator. He took issue with the
fiscal cost and said we must act responsibly. He further stated,
having direct access to the legislative process was far better
than any electronic media could provide. He remarked one-half of
the children located in Anchorage would have access to the
legislative process which was far better than only 10 percent
currently. He further stated the Close-Up Program was a cost
benefit ratio issue. He asserted we must serve the people the
best way possible. Representative Green suggested a survey to
determine the percentage of people who would want to keep the
capital in Juneau but move the legislature to Anchorage where the
participation turnout would be higher. He disclosed, if there
was a way to satisfy his constituents and not move the capital he
would be for it. He further commented he was concerned about the
cost involved. He said he was amazed at the energy of the Juneau
people and suggested they turn that energy towards a constructive
Southeast issue such as opening the AJ Mine. Representative
Green moved that HB 71 move from the House State Affairs
committee with the attached fiscal notes with individual
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON objected.
Number 1408
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS suggested a technical amendment on page
1, line 8, to read "Tuesday" instead of "Monday" referring to the
convening of the legislature on a holiday, Martin Luther King
Day.
Number 1448
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded the convening of the legislature
was a constitutional issue.
Number 1470
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it was an argumentative issue. He was
aware of one legal opinion that said it was not a constitutional
issue, but he agreed, it was not a good idea to convene on a
holiday.
Number 1478
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said he wanted to bring that up for
consideration.
Number 1484
CHAIR JAMES said HB 71 would next go to the Judiciary Committee
where the issue could be addressed.
Number 1499
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested the above recommendation move with
the bill to the Judiciary Committee. There might be other
judicial issues discovered as well.
Number 1518
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would not have a problem addressing
those issues as chair of the Judicial Committee.
Number 1538
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON informed the committee members that
Representative Bettye Davis had a bill to change the date when
the legislature convenes. She reiterated her objection to the
motion.
Number 1555
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN thanked the testifiers today and applauded
the Gavel to Gavel coverage brought about by their efforts. He
said, it took money to access democracy especially in a state the
size of Alaska. His district would be against a move such as
this due to the cost factor. He commended the Mayor and the City
and Borough of Juneau for trying to make things comfortable for
the legislators. The bottom line, however, was access.
Number 1675
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said, he would vote "yes" on HB 71 and said
this was a question of access. Last November, he stated, the
people in his district voted 69 percent in favor of a capital
move. Therefore, he must reflect their feelings, and vote
accordingly.
Number 1750
CHAIR JAMES said her conservative district did not vote in favor
of moving the capital due to the fiscal restraints. She felt
they would favor the capital closer in proximity to them but did
not want to pay for the relocation expenses.
Number 1799
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that HB 71 move from the House State
Affairs Committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. There was an objection, so a roll call vote was
taken. Representatives James, Ogan, Green, Ivan, Porter and
Willis voted in favor of moving the bill. Representative
Robinson voted against moving the bill. So, HB 71 moved from the
committee.
Number 1890
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|